Public sector contract termination

This subtopic is aimed at public sector lawyers dealing with contract matters and considers some of the key issues and circumstances which may arise in relation to contract termination.

A contract may be discharged in a number of ways, including:

•
performance—where the parties are discharged from further performance once they have completed their obligations under the contract
•
effluxion of time—where a contract has been put in place for a specific period of time and expires (unless extended)
•
discharge by agreement—where the parties agree to bring the contract to an end
•
void contracts—where a contract is void by reason of mistake, misapprehension, or statute
•
rescission—where one party is entitled to rescind the contract by reason of the other party’s misrepresentation, undue influence or duress
•
force majeure—where the contract provides for termination in the event of force majeure
•
frustration—where some unforeseen event prevents the parties from performing the contract
•
termination—where are party exercises termination rights set out within the contract
•
breach—where one party is in breach of contract, entitling the other party to terminate the contract

For

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

SLSC reports on SI scrutiny in the year to July 2025

The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) has published its 35th Report of Session 2024–2026, providing an overview of its scrutiny of secondary legislation during the first year of the current Parliament. Between 17 July 2024 and 22 July 2025, the Committee considered 655 statutory instruments and other types of secondary legislation, drawing 68 (10.4%) to the special attention of the House. The report outlines areas of improvement and identifies recurring issues affecting the quality and transparency of secondary legislation. It notes examples of good practice in some departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and encourages all departments to strengthen oversight, maintain institutional knowledge and make use of available training. A concluding report is set to be published at the end of the session.

IMA welcomes Home Office policy change on pre-settled status retention for domestic abuse victims

The Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (IMA) has reported on the Home Office’s updated policy, which allows EU, EEA and EFTA citizens to retain pre-settled status while simultaneously holding immigration status under domestic abuse routes (as well as other domestic immigration routes). The changes apply retrospectively and are supported by updated caseworker guidance. Although the eVisa digital status system displays only a citizen’s most recent status, the Home Office confirms that pre-settled status information remains accessible through other systems such as the Employer Checking Service and Landlord Checking Service. The IMA welcomes the changes but notes it will continue working with the Home Office to understand the revised policy, assess alignment with the Citizens’ Rights Agreements and maintain stakeholder engagement. It notes that there had been a judicial review on the issue, on which it had been granted permission to intervene in, but that was withdrawn by the Claimant before the IMA had filed its written submissions.

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

MoJ introduces Public Office (Accountability) Bill with new duty of candour for officials

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill to Parliament. The legislation would create a new professional and legal duty of candour for public officials, backed by criminal sanctions for serious breaches. It would establish non-means tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests, introduce a new criminal offence for misleading the public, and require legal spending by public bodies at inquests to be proportionate. The measures aim to prevent institutional concealment of facts following public disasters and scandals, applying to all public bodies and officials.